Question about a d20 Ranger

[Arkhandus]

3.5 is stupid and specifically indicates you have to choose from the stupid little list that it gives. In 3.0 you just had to specify a subtype if you chose humanoid or outsider, but in 3.5 it actually lists the specific subtypes of each that you're supposed to choose from. It's retarded and is based on the assumption your games will never include a creature that isn't one of those core subtypes. Even though they stupidly forgot to include several core subtypes among that list. And that list of favored enemies doesn't include later creature types like Deathless from Eberron. Never mind such non-core subtypes as those in the Expanded Psionics Handbook and the "Races of Stone/Destiny/the Wild/whatever" books.

Humanoid (Shapechanger) should be perfectly acceptable as a favored enemy selection. It just explicitly requires DM approval due to 3.5's bad redesign. They couldn't just stick to fixing the small number of things that actually needed it......noooooo.......

It is so incredibly stupid how they limited it for no particular reason, when it was perfectly clear in the 3.0 write-up of the ability that you could choose any creature type and, for humanoids or outsiders, any subtype.

Just one of many idiotic, pointless changes implemented in 3.5 to confuse people just as much as the 3.5 revisers were confused when they went into a flurry of changes for the sake of change alone.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

What an odd omission.

Personally, since I'd be house-ruling anyway, I'd go even farther and allow the ranger to choose the entire Shapechanger subtype.

 

[Kerrick]

3.5 is stupid and specifically indicates you have to choose from the stupid little list that it gives. In 3.0 you just had to specify a subtype if you chose humanoid or outsider, but in 3.5 it actually lists the specific subtypes of each that you're supposed to choose from. It's retarded and is based on the assumption your games will never include a creature that isn't one of those core subtypes. Even though they stupidly forgot to include several core subtypes among that list. And that list of favored enemies doesn't include later creature types like Deathless from Eberron. Never mind such non-core subtypes as those in the Expanded Psionics Handbook and the "Races of Stone/Destiny/the Wild/whatever" books.

Humanoid (Shapechanger) should be perfectly acceptable as a favored enemy selection. It just explicitly requires DM approval due to 3.5's bad redesign. They couldn't just stick to fixing the small number of things that actually needed it......noooooo.......

It is so incredibly stupid how they limited it for no particular reason, when it was perfectly clear in the 3.0 write-up of the ability that you could choose any creature type and, for humanoids or outsiders, any subtype.

Just one of many idiotic, pointless changes implemented in 3.5 to confuse people just as much as the 3.5 revisers were confused when they went into a flurry of changes for the sake of change alone.

Gee, Ark, tell us what you really think.

But seriously, I've never seen the point for every single humanoid subtype either - it's needlessly complex.

 

[pawsplay]

It's not even clear to me why humanoids need to be subdivided in the first place. Magical beasts covers a huge range of creatures, and humanoid opponents are hardly the mainstay of D&D.

 

[ValhallaGH]

It's not even clear to me why humanoids need to be subdivided in the first place. Magical beasts covers a huge range of creatures, and humanoid opponents are hardly the mainstay of D&D.

Given that the designers apparently felt that humanoid races (humans, orcs, goblins, drow, etc.) and extra-planar creatures (outsiders) would be the most common foes in a campaign, building in subdivisions makes a sort of sense.
It's easier to remove than it would be to introduce. If the DM says "You don't have to pick subtypes when you choose Humanoid or Outsider as a Favored Enemy" then the DM looks like a nice guy. If the DM said that you had to choose subtypes when you didn't then the DM would look like a jerk. So, from that perspective, the design choice makes a lot of sense, providing a level of granularity that can be stripped out as desired.
In many settings, humanoids are the primary antagonists. Both as the major villains (dudes with class levels), and as sword-fodder for major organizations (cults, armies, city guards, etc.). This means that DMs who have multiple humanoid races can swap up the races used and limit the impact of PCs with humanoid favored opponents, giving the DM better control over the course, pacing, and fun of his campaign. For that point, subdivisions almost make sense.
Further, there may have been some sort of historic perspective involved (I don't know, I came in at 3rd Edition).

Favored Enemy is powerful. If you don't agree, just ask any DM that's run an undead campaign and had a ranger (or two) in the party. That said, it's not unbalancing.
Killing golems and killing lions is probably pretty different, and I haven't run into many people who would argue with separating Constructs and Animals. But is killing elves and killing orcs really that different? According to the rules, yes; according to common sense, no.

My advice, which I do follow, is to compress Humanoid into a single category, and Outsider into a single category. This makes them as useful and appealing as Undead, Animal, Magical Beast, Aberration, or any of the other big categories.

Good gaming, all.

 

[Arkhandus]

3.5 is full of stupid changes and omissions that had no reason and served no purpose.

Humanoids and outsiders are divided into subtypes for Favored Enemies, Bane Weapons, and such because there's a lot of different in their cultures, tactics, weapons, and such. Humans don't generally fight the same way as goblins and don't behave socially like goblins; nor do they behave and fight the same as elves, or whatever. A demon will fight and act rather differently from a devil, who will fight and act differently from a rilmani or genie or guardinal or whatever. While magical beasts, for example, are quite varied, they're often fairly simple and animal-like in behavior or tactics, and generally have little or no culture. Only a few have actual societies or the like. It's not a perfect explanation, but it's the most reasonable.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I'm confused how this:

3.5 is full of stupid changes and omissions that had no reason and served no purpose.

Is related to this:

Humanoids and outsiders are divided into subtypes for Favored Enemies, Bane Weapons, and such because there's a lot of different in their cultures, tactics, weapons, and such. Humans don't generally fight the same way as goblins and don't behave socially like goblins; nor do they behave and fight the same as elves, or whatever. A demon will fight and act rather differently from a devil, who will fight and act differently from a rilmani or genie or guardinal or whatever. While magical beasts, for example, are quite varied, they're often fairly simple and animal-like in behavior or tactics, and generally have little or no culture. Only a few have actual societies or the like. It's not a perfect explanation, but it's the most reasonable.

Huh. I can sort of see that.
It doesn't explain Aberrations, Giants, or Undead, but it is an almost viable explanation, in world, for why it would have the divisions.

 

[Thanael]

+1 for fav enemy humanoid(shapchanger).

Also check out this thread for ideas:http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/218664-werewolf-hunter-help-needed.html